Monthly Archives: May 2009

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a controversial bill that was passed by the House in 2007 and stalled in Senate 2008. It was reintroduced to Legislature as of March 2009. Obama has committed to passing it.

It is an awful bill that will do great damage to our economy.

Current Law (NLRA)

If 30% support union, NLRB grants a “Secret Ballot Election”.

Union certified if majority vote is YES.

Companies must “bargain” in good faith but are not required to reach an agreement.

Proposed Law (EFCA)

Card Check – If over 50% of cards affirm union support then the NLRB certifies the union without an election.

If no contract is reached within 120 days, a binding arbitration guaranteed contract for 2 years is put in place without a vote.

Eliminating secret ballots could lead to union intimidation, unfair representation, etc. Union organizers can follow people out in public, get in their faces, pressure them to sign cards, etc.

Unfair binding arbitration will have all sorts of consequences. Once you get a union it is almost impossible to get rid of it. They cost jobs. The U.S. automakers made lots of bad decisions over the years, but the unions were the biggest catalyst in their failures. You simply can’t compete when your costs are that much higher than your competitors.

The family said its loss “is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence.”

And more irony:

President Barack Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” he said.

Of course we shouldn’t resort to killing abortionists, but abortion itself is a heinous act of violence. If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is. It should be illegal, just as killing Tiller was illegal.

—–

I saw one Christian writing that the murderer took away Tiller’s chance to repent. Don’t worry, folks, God is sovereign. No one will be able to claim that they just needed a little more time to repent and believe.

—–

Another writer said to pray for his soul. Uh, sorry folks, too late for that.

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment

—–

Also see The Wintery Knight blog, which “strongly condemns all abortion-related violence, whether it’s committed against the born or the unborn,” while asking if it is rational for atheists to condemn his murder.

—–

I subscribe to over 100 blogs. Well over a dozen have commented on this. I’ve yet to see one that didn’t condemn the murder, though I’m sure the MSM will ignore the clear and consistent principles of the pro-live movement and try to demonize and broad-brush us with this.

When I first heard it I figured it must be some type of urban legend. Apparently not.

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones’ thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

They should win easily on appeal, what with that pesky First Amendment thingy that Obama hasn’t completely repealed yet.

I was recently corrected by a fellow blogger because I used the term “Immaculate Conception” in an erroneous way. I always thought the term referred to Jesus’ conception, but it turns out that it refers to the false teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin. My bad.

(As noted on the Sorry, but Mary can’t save you post, there is no biblical justification for Mary being sinless and plenty demonstrating that despite her unique role and great example she was a sinner in need of a Savior just like us. If Mary “had” to be sinless, as many commenters claimed, then by that reasoning her parents had to have been sinless as well, and their parents, and so on. And if she could have been sinless through some other means, then of course that could have applied to Jesus as well. If you need more please read that thread. I don’t want to replay that discussion here.)

But back to my mistake . . . there are a few takeaways from this experience.

Important life lesson: If you become sure that you are wrong about something then the best thing to do is quickly concede that point. It is an effective strategy at work and at home. Don’t let pride get in the way. It just makes you look bad.

The person who corrected me was factual, polite and discreet, taking the time to gently correct me via email. A comment on the blog would have been fine, but I appreciated his extra effort and friendly tone. I let him know that I sincerely appreciated the correction. I would have hated to continue using the term in error, so what he did was the loving, Christian thing.

Also, it is fun to point out to my critics that I’m not the rigid, dogmatic fundy they like to pretend I am. You see, if you show me legitimate evidence that my views are wrong I will gladly change them.

It is just that I’ve exhaustively studied issues like abortion, oxymoronic “same sex marriage,” what the Bible teaches about human sexuality, the divinity of Jesus, the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, the exclusivity of Jesus, etc. and am extremely confident that the facts support my views. Is it possible, in a hyper-technical sense, that I could be wrong on any of those topics? I suppose so, but the evidence just isn’t there to demonstrate that.

But under no circumstance can they claim I’m not correctable. I seriously doubt that they’ll be correctable on their false view that I’m not. Abandoning life in Stereotype Land is just too hard for some people

Speaking of immaculate things, I do have faith in the Immaculate Reception and the Immaculate Interception. Go Steelers!

Major Burns was kissing up to another character in the TV show MASH once (probably Margaret) and said the inanity in the title. That reminds me of the Darwinian (“macro-“) evolution tautology about the survival of the fittest:

This wasn’t some slip of the tongue or misstatement. We should be charitable to anyone who makes an innocent misstatement and let them correct it. But as one blogger put it, this was pure wink-wink-nudge-nudge. She made no secret of how she really felt and the audience laughed along.

Given her errors on the role of judges, she is not only unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, she isn’t even qualified to judge a local dog show. I mean that in the most literal sense. Judges interpret laws, they don’t make them. It couldn’t be more simple.

I am the VP of an Internal Audit group. We may make recommendations at times, but we don’t create the rules. We just audit the organizations and see if they are in compliance. It is a similar situation as with being a judge. Different entities have different roles and responsibilities. Things get really messed up in a hurry when one group does another group’s job.

I was very proud of my high school daughters when they read Obama’s views on judges and immediately realized he was 180 degrees from the truth.

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with “empathy.”Obama hinted that the court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart — which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion — was part of “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case’s majority opinion. “Justice Kennedy knows many things,” he declared, “but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.”

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts’ character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. “He loves his wife. He’s good to his dog,” he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Side note: The news said she would make the sixth Catholic on the S.C. No one seems to mind, though, because as a pro-abortionist she’s about as Catholic as I am.

This is one of the greatest reasons the last election counted so much. Shame on the Christians who voted for Obama.

Will she ultimately get nominated? Sure, but the Republicans need to do their jobs and educate people on what judges are supposed to do. One of Bush’s biggest failures was not communicating his message. He could have stood up every week and explained why abortion is wrong, for example.

Then they try the “equality” ploy. But skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not. “Same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. They have as much right to it as I have to a square circle. Pointing that out doesn’t mean I hate gays.

I know quite a few gays. We get along great. One is the retired dance teacher for the girls. I saw him at the Cinderella performance and we hugged (Eek, right?). A couple of the guys I performed with were gay. We talked about family, work, etc. Shocking, eh?

Hopefully some counter-ads will explain these remarkably simple concepts.

—

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee looks like a jurisprudence train wreck — I won’t blog much about her given that the news is everywhere on this. Just imagine if a white guy had said a different version of the following:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.